Bird In Flight Shutter Speeds

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

If you are a Nikon shooter, Steve's Manual + Auto ISO should be set up as "Photoshooting Menu Bank A" . Then insert Steve's most recommended shutter speed for the situation. This Youtube video explains it quite well:
I also set up the red dot video button near the shutter button + real wheel to quickly change Menu banks - hold video button and spin wheel to go through A B C and D Menu Banks. Set up A for Action and B for sitting duck etc. etc.

Got all my bodies set up exactly like this. Most of the time I'm shooting in M & Auto ISO but, for an example, I'm shooting a fast jet then need to react to a prop plane. Quick press of the video button and one click of the rear wheel and I'm in Bank B with shutter priority at 1/125th and low ISO. If I'd have been cranking down the shutter speed manually and checking what the ISO is doing I'd have missed the shot. Works great for me!
 
Thanks Steve, very helpful. I actually watched the video when you first posted but found it was helpful to watch it again.... I had forgotten about the exposure compensation option. The e-book is excellent by the way.
 
I love auto ISO. After working with fixed ASA values in film for years l welcome auto ISO. Just make sure you put a reasonable max setting. I found that 3200 for my D500 is fine. Using manual with auto ISO is the best of both worlds as far as I’m concerned. And when conditions are tricky that’s where exposure compensation comes in.
 
Would a faster speed reduce the effect of heat haze?
Not really. Heat haze is like a softening filter (think vaseline smeared on a front filter as some portrait photogs do). Simply increasing the shutter speed doesn't change the diffraction effects of shooting through that heat haze. I suspect if it's very hot haze to the point where you image is warbling in the viewfinder then faster shutter speeds could help that aspect but you're still shooting through the diffraction even at top shutter speeds.

For years I had a personal rule to never use a teleconverter on my 600mm lens for a whole body shot of a subject larger than a basketball. It wasn't based on any teleconverter quality issue with my 600mm f/4, it just meant that if I needed a TC plus a 600mm lens for a full body image of something like a Moose I was just too far away and shooting through too much atmosphere. Sure the size restriction of a basketball might be extreme and realistically if I see a beauty of a Grizzly Bear where I need the TC plus the 600mm lens to get a decent shot I'll probably still try it but my expectations of a great image are low. That's just based on normal atmospheric diffraction with dust, water vapor and the like. Add obvious heat diffraction and mirage type effects and it will only get worse working at long distances.
 
I shoot birds and for BIF 750-900mm FE is the norm. Heat haze hasn't been much of an issue with consumer lenses on APS-C but a hi res lens on FF is more affected by it.
I find with a physically big lens speeds have to go up a stop too - it's harder to handhold steady.
 
Not really. Heat haze is like a softening filter (think vaseline smeared on a front filter as some portrait photogs do). Simply increasing the shutter speed doesn't change the diffraction effects of shooting through that heat haze. I suspect if it's very hot haze to the point where you image is warbling in the viewfinder then faster shutter speeds could help that aspect but you're still shooting through the diffraction even at top shutter speeds.

For years I had a personal rule to never use a teleconverter on my 600mm lens for a whole body shot of a subject larger than a basketball. It wasn't based on any teleconverter quality issue with my 600mm f/4, it just meant that if I needed a TC plus a 600mm lens for a full body image of something like a Moose I was just too far away and shooting through too much atmosphere. Sure the size restriction of a basketball might be extreme and realistically if I see a beauty of a Grizzly Bear where I need the TC plus the 600mm lens to get a decent shot I'll probably still try it but my expectations of a great image are low. That's just based on normal atmospheric diffraction with dust, water vapor and the like. Add obvious heat diffraction and mirage type effects and it will only get worse working at long distances.


The one other thing I would add to this is looking though the viewfinder you don't always see the Heat Diffraction /haze/ whatever you want to call it... but rest assured when you take a photo and you get home thinking I have this AWESOME shot of a bald eagle at 1/4 mile..... it going to be as soft as a baby's bottom... then you finally realize what is happening. If we only didn't have to deal with that pesky Atmosphere. :)
 
I don't know...that's not really been my field experience. I can get sharp eyes when panning at as little as 1/20th of a second - and I certainly can't do that with a bird flying towards the camera :) When you're panning side to side, you're keeping some or all of the bird's movement in check since you're panning along (depending on your panning technique of course).

However, when the bird is coming straight at you, that option is gone. While I agree it isn't changing size at a rapid rate (depending on the distance), it's still moving and the size is changing a bit with each second. Different bits of the bird are over different pixels.

I'm going to try to do a little math here, but it's not my first language so correct me if I'm wrong on this :)

Using your 30MPH example, a bird flying right at you is covering 44 feet per second. That's 528 inches per second so at 1/500th of a second, you're getting about an inch of movement. One inch of movement coming at the camera is going to show blur. In fact, I think we can agree that even 1/4 of an inch worth of motion during exposure would probably still be visible with a target coming towards the camera (1/2000th approximately). To get down to 1/8th inch of movement - which I don't think would be noticeable on a target flying towards the camera, you'd need 1/4000th of a second or so. Much more than necessary for all but the fastest birds flying side to side.

Hope that makes sense :)
I agree Steve! Over simplifying it, if a bird is moving at 20mph, he is flying L-R or R-L at 20 mph, plus he is coming at you at 20 mph. That speed is only compensated (Partially offset) by panning L-R or R-L shots!
 
Yeah, like anything there are tradeoffs and taking the idea to an extreme isn't a good idea whether that's NEVER go above ISO 400 (just an example) or ALWAYS run the fastest possible shutter speed, ISO be damned.

I certainly still try to keep ISO down as low as possible but I'm no longer afraid to bump it up when the situation calls for it and that's a big change after decades of photography that trained me to think anything over ISO 400 or maybe 640 was just out of the question for nature and wildlife work. But sure if the situation and subject lets me slow things down and shoot at or close to base ISO that's still my first choice.

But sure, your point is spot on. Just because we can run some higher ISO levels with modern gear when necessary doesn't mean we should or at least doesn't mean we should just crank up the shutter speed all the time in every situation with no regard to the ISO impact. But it sure is nice having the option for more shutter speed or DOF when it's needed for action in less than ideal light.

Maybe it's just my perspective but I suspect there are more old school shooters stuck in the idea that ISO has to be kept ultra low all the time than newer folks who just run it all the way up for no good reason but who knows maybe the latter is a bigger issue these days for folks that started with the newer tools.

So the million dollar question to you. Which has more effect on image quality iso or shutter speed. Me, I think the iso has to be kept low. If that means tripod and wide aperture then so be it? What say you?
 
So the million dollar question to you. Which has more effect on image quality iso or shutter speed. Me, I think the iso has to be kept low. If that means tripod and wide aperture then so be it? What say you?
Sure, but remember this thread is in the context of Birds in Flight images where shutter speed plays a pretty big role in terms of minimizing motion blur even if the camera is tripod mounted. A noise free image with noticeable motion blur hits the trash bin faster than a somewhat noisy but sharp image...
 
I don't know...that's not really been my field experience. I can get sharp eyes when panning at as little as 1/20th of a second - and I certainly can't do that with a bird flying towards the camera :) When you're panning side to side, you're keeping some or all of the bird's movement in check since you're panning along (depending on your panning technique of course).

However, when the bird is coming straight at you, that option is gone. While I agree it isn't changing size at a rapid rate (depending on the distance), it's still moving and the size is changing a bit with each second. Different bits of the bird are over different pixels.

I'm going to try to do a little math here, but it's not my first language so correct me if I'm wrong on this :)

Using your 30MPH example, a bird flying right at you is covering 44 feet per second. That's 528 inches per second so at 1/500th of a second, you're getting about an inch of movement. One inch of movement coming at the camera is going to show blur. In fact, I think we can agree that even 1/4 of an inch worth of motion during exposure would probably still be visible with a target coming towards the camera (1/2000th approximately). To get down to 1/8th inch of movement - which I don't think would be noticeable on a target flying towards the camera, you'd need 1/4000th of a second or so. Much more than necessary for all but the fastest birds flying side to side.

Hope that makes sense :)
Never thought of it mathematically like that but it makes perfect sense. Thanks Steve.
 
I am an old school film shooter and I have only been using my first DSLR , a D500 for about a year and a half. And initially, I too would manually set my ISO to 400. But once I discovered Auto ISO I never looked back. It is a fantastic feature. But I set it’s upper limit to 3200 and always keep an eye on it. I will use what’s needed as a shutter speed setting and if I think I need 3000 or 4000 I’ll use it. But I always try to keep the ISO below 1000 if possible but have no fear of going higher If I need the shutter speed. I think the D500 handles it well.
 
The other consideration with ISO - and therefore shutter speed - is whether or not you are going to crop. Every 1/4 of the frame you eliminate is like increasing the ISO by one stop (based on the 1.25 stop difference between Full Frame and DX Crop at www.photonstophotos.net ). With a deep crop - for example to 100% view on a D850 or Z7II - the effective ISO looks similar to an uncropped image at ISO 12,800. So there is a significant penalty for cropping.

You can choose how high you want to push ISO - but this illustrates the point using a D850 or Z7II sensor. Said another way, if you have a full size image, and downsize it to post on the internet, you pick up nearly 8 stops of noise reduction through resizing. So go ahead and use very high ISO levels if your output size small and you are not cropping much.

Equivalent ISO with cropping.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
What is the source of this table ?

It's created - the 75% adjustment is based on www.photonstophotos.net - a comparison of the same camera with a DX crop vs. full frame. That difference is 1.25 stops on average for a frame size difference of 67% of the frame. I rounded to express in full stops. It's not intended to be precise, but directionally is pretty close.
 
Last edited:
It's created - the 75% adjustment is based on www.photostophotos.net - a comparison of the same camera with a DX crop vs. full frame. That difference is 1.25 stops on average for a frame size difference of 67% of the frame. I rounded to express in full stops. It's not intended to be precise, but directionally is pretty close.
It sounded interesting to be worth seeing some more detail. Unfortunately the browser is suggesting a typo in the link.
 
It sounded interesting to be worth seeing some more detail. Unfortunately the browser is suggesting a typo in the link.

The link is corrected now. Bill Claff is generally considered equal or better than DxO in his methodology. The Photographic Dynamic Range Chart is quite useful in evaluating noise vs. ISO for various cameras.
 
I posted something similar in another thread today, but I think a lot of us that either shot film or shot first and second generation DSLRs have a bit of ISO phobia and struggle to adapt to what modern sensors and modern image processing can handle gracefully. Well without over generalizing at least I sure took a long time to accept that something like ISO 3200 or 6400 or even higher in some cameras can be fine if that's what it takes. Over the last year or so I've been slowly bumping up the high ISO cap in my Auto ISO settings and have been favorably impressed with the results.

It could be a topic for a blog post or video @Steve, to paraphrase the Moody Blues.... Don't Fear the ISO (and make sure to have plenty of cowbell :) ). I bet a lot of folks who cut their teeth with older digital cameras or film could use a reminder of the times and what modern cameras can get away with and how that can allow shooting flexibility like higher shutter speeds or smaller apertures for greater DOF when the situation calls for it without ruining the image with noise.
DRWyoming, having just joined the forum recently, I've been catching up on old posts that look interesting. Not photographically related but I think you mean Blue Oyster Cult's Don't Fear the Reaper but I take your point as a older photographer who grew up with film and limited ASA speeds.
 
DRWyoming, having just joined the forum recently, I've been catching up on old posts that look interesting. Not photographically related but I think you mean Blue Oyster Cult's Don't Fear the Reaper but I take your point as a older photographer who grew up with film and limited ASA speeds.
Yeah, that was pointed out earlier in this thread and yup senior moment on my part :)
 
Back
Top